Johnson & Johnson Faces New Legal Pressure as Judge Admits Cancer Evidence
New Brunswick, Thursday, 22 January 2026.
A special master’s recommendation now permits expert testimony linking talc to ovarian cancer, a critical procedural shift affecting over 67,500 lawsuits despite Johnson & Johnson’s immediate appeal plans.
Expert Testimony and General Causation
On January 21, 2026, Special Master Freda Wolfson, a retired U.S. District Judge, issued a comprehensive decision reaffirming that plaintiffs in the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) may present expert testimony supporting the claim that perineal use of talc causes ovarian cancer [1][2]. This ruling, detailed in a report spanning over 600 pages, addresses the critical issue of “general causation,” effectively allowing juries to hear scientific arguments linking Johnson & Johnson’s products to the alleged injuries [1][5]. The decision impacts a massive legal docket, with more than 67,500 lawsuits currently pending in the federal court in New Jersey [2][3]. By validating the admissibility of these experts, the court has rejected the notion that the plaintiffs’ scientific evidence is insufficient to proceed to trial, a stance the defense had vigorously argued against [1][5].
Corporate Pushback and Financial Outlook
Johnson & Johnson has immediately signaled its intent to appeal the recommendation to U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp, who oversees the litigation [2][3]. Erik Haas, the company’s Worldwide Vice President of Litigation, criticized the Special Master’s decision, stating that it failed to conduct the “requisite rigorous review” of the studies cited by plaintiffs’ experts [2]. This legal friction coincides with the company’s latest financial reporting; despite the looming legal battles, Johnson & Johnson reported worldwide revenue of $94.2 billion for 2025 [4]. Looking ahead, the company projects sales to reach $100.5 billion in 2026, representing a forecasted growth of approximately 6.688% year-over-year [4]. CFO Joseph Wolk defended the company’s position, asserting that while the Special Master correctly excluded some experts, the court failed its “gatekeeping duty” by allowing others who rely on what he termed “junk science” [4].